I’m sure this isn’t going to meet with a favorable response but I’ve been thinking a lot about the crime scene lately and I just have so many doubts about the common theory here. Here’s what I’ve been thinking…

Consider the possibility the staging was to implicate someone rather than detract from who the real target was. Maybe that’s why we can't figure out the staging. Perhaps the real "target" was a living person, done to scare them or remind them who held the power. Staged cigarettes...why? To implicate the person who used that brand?

Marty told Dee they had 30 pieces of evidence that implicated him, including a bloody fingerprint, yet he walked. Why was that?

this isn't an unfavorable reply, it's just meant to explain why I have issues with the "staging to finger or warn others" theory.

We don't know what brand Marty smoked. I've seen him in photos with packs, but no labels.

We know from family that Bo smoked Camels. Is he your target? If so, why kill a family to warn off Bo, who'd been in town 2 weeks?

How did Marty's fingerprint get on a bloody glass at the crime scene?

Marty's behavior after the murders, including his meltdowns at the Meeks, across from the Meeks, and in lockup before being pushed out of town.

Marty's confession

Explain the vast multitude of lies Marty and Bo told LE, incl McClish's debunking and all other debunking

Same goes for Marilyn's lies- but if Loon was setting them up (and no matter what you think of Bo and Marty, Loon was definitely throwing them under the bus) you have to remember that all three of them concocted the Loonibi TOGETHER and kept working on it TOGETHER, up until Bo, and later Marty, skipped town.

Then there's the matter of proximity. Whoever did this was very close-by and felt very comfortable spending time in the cabin, knew the surroundings very well at night, and came back to the cabin a long time after the murders to do the 'final' staging.

I'm not saying the theory I've put forward is correct. The core elements of it are substantiated facts, and I've pieced them together in the simplest manner plausible. I also firmly believe simplicity- both in the crime and the mentality of the idiot criminals responsible- is the way to look at it. The motive and targets can easily be more complicated, because I'm going on what I see instead of what we don't see or know.

I also think there's enough on the table about the crimes and Bo and Marty and Marilyn that if you want to run new or old theories up the flagpole, to do so without considering the knowns and explaining how the proposed circumstances match the facts should be met with our typically enthusiastic skepticism.

this isn't an unfavorable reply, it's just meant to explain why I have issues with the "staging to finger or warn others" theory.

We don't know what brand Marty smoked. I've seen him in photos with packs, but no labels.

We know from family that Bo smoked Camels. Is he your target? If so, why kill a family to warn off Bo, who'd been in town 2 weeks?

Camels were a popular brand. If Bo smoked Camels its possible Marty did too especially since he was a leech. Plus, unless there were fingerprints or DNA, we don’t know who left those ciggies. Could have been one of the boys.

How did Marty's fingerprint get on a bloody glass at the crime scene?

A bloody fingerprint clear enough to identify was enough to convict in 1981. Why didn't they go with it? Justin supposedly identified them as being at the scene. Eye witness. Why didn't they take them to trial? Who made the identification on the bloody fingerprint? Where's the documentation? Was there a reasonable explanation for it to be where it was? Why didn't they ASK Marty about the glass? Too many missing factors for me to be sold on it.

Marty's behavior after the murders, including his meltdowns at the Meeks, across from the Meeks, and in lockup before being pushed out of town.

Marty's behavior was all over the place and showed that he was freaked out. That doesn't make him guilty. There are a lot of things that could have added to his stress. His family was torn apart, his wife was leaving him, there were supposedly 30 pieces of evidence against him for murder, etc. (Not to mention his apparent friendship with the Sheriff. What was that about? Was he the good informant who got warned off?) Without knowing for sure what he was going through we can't assume his behavior was coming from a guilty conscience vs just outright fear.

Marty's confession

Sorry. The confession is highly suspicious. Too many missing factors, too many questions. And why do we believe Marty's confession but not Henry Thompson's? or Robert Silveria's? Because Marty's fits the picture. Marty’s simplifies it. But so does Marty as Patsy. Why not set it up for him to “take the fall” with the promise he won’t be touched, won’t be prosecuted (which appears to be the case, no?) Do we know he didn’t confess because he was told to? Do we know he wasn’t cooperating with officials to draw attention to himself and away from the real reason they were killed? Why didn’t he mention his accomplice in this confession? Why didn’t he admit to killing the boys? There’s less shame in that than killing a woman and a little girl. To many question marks for me to put a lid on the box.

Explain the vast multitude of lies Marty and Bo told LE, incl McClish's debunking and all other debunking

Vast majority of lies Marty and Bo told LE and THEY DID NOTHING! Took their word for it and let them walk. LE went through the motions. To this stop short anyone wanting to investigate this case. And McClish's report holds the same water as a polygraph and hypnosis to me. Its a useful tool but not full-proof.

Same goes for Marilyn's lies- but if Loon was setting them up (and no matter what you think of Bo and Marty, Loon was definitely throwing them under the bus) you have to remember that all three of them concocted the Loonibi TOGETHER and kept working on it TOGETHER, up until Bo, and later Marty, skipped town.

What if the Loonibi is true? What then? Yes, she did throw Marty under the bus. I don’t see where she threw Bo under too. And she didn’t start throwing him under right away. The documents show they didn’t leave Keddie when she and Mrs Meeks say she did. She didn’t throw Marty under the bus until she was away from him. She didn’t even doubt he’d gone to Reno that next day until Mrs Meeks reminded her. She didn’t even remember it. Justin was interviewed in Doug Thomas’ car that morning at about the time Mrs Meeks claimed she came and got them. So who do we believe? When are we going to address these lies? Marilyn, Marty and Bo weren’t the only ones telling lies. You’ve pointed that out yourself recently. Why accuse someone of lying if you already think this is solved?

Then there's the matter of proximity. Whoever did this was very close-by and felt very comfortable spending time in the cabin, knew the surroundings very well at night, and came back to the cabin a long time after the murders to do the 'final' staging.

Henry Thompson had been in the cabin…his family members used to live in Cabin 28. He knew his way around. Anyone who lived in that neighborhood could be said to know their way around. Why only look at Marty and Bo (Bo who had only been there 2 weeks)? What about Frank Davis who shared a mutual friend with Marty? He’s the only one who said Sue had a fight with an Avery Schrieber looking guy. Was he trying to mislead? If so why? And why aren’t we looking closer at him? He moved out the week prior but what’s to say he didn’t come back? Maybe the acid party was in his old, unoccupied cabin. He seems more likely to have had a party than a young married couple with kids. And why were Jawad and Jones polygraphed? Why aren’t there any transcripts of their interviews? Are we to assume they were never spoken to but agreed to take polygraphs? Marty and Bo the only ones who knew their way around? I don’t think so.

I'm not saying the theory I've put forward is correct. The core elements of it are substantiated facts, and I've pieced them together in the simplest manner plausible. I also firmly believe simplicity- both in the crime and the mentality of the idiot criminals responsible- is the way to look at it. The motive and targets can easily be more complicated, because I'm going on what I see instead of what we don't see or know.

Although I appreciate your commitment to simplicity, to me nothing of these crimes smacks of simplicity. These perps were clever enough to get away with it for 31 years. Nothing about these crimes, to me, shows the perps were idiots. So if you're basing that on how Marty acted after the crimes then I ask you to look deeper. This guy who was known for not keeping his flap shut tells only one person he was responsible and that was a person he believed couldn't do anything about it because of his position as a therapist. That's pretty damn clever, if you ask me. You’re right…the motive and targets could easily be more complicated. I appreciate you’re going on what you see. But I’m of the firm belief we haven’t been shown everything there is to see nor do we know everything about this case there is to know. Sorry. I’m that annoying juror who just won’t vote conviction as long as there’s reasonable doubt. And there’s a lot of reasonable doubt with this case. Until there are more answers I’m going on “this is an open case, an open investigation”. I’ll keep thinking, I’ll keep digging, I’ll keep plugging along.

I also think there's enough on the table about the crimes and Bo and Marty and Marilyn that if you want to run new or old theories up the flagpole, to do so without considering the knowns and explaining how the proposed circumstances match the facts should be met with our typically enthusiastic skepticism.

I don't really care if people disagree with me. Healthy skepticism is welcome. I'm just not entirely convinced Marty and Bo went berserko one night and one night only, walked away from it never to go berserko again and no one could prove it even though they had fingerprints, confessions and whatever else up the wazoo. Bottom line? Either A) they were protected or B) they didn't do it. Disagree if you want.Not every part of the Marty and Bo solution is based on concrete facts. Some is hearsay. We pick and choose what we want to accept in our pet theories and ignore what we can’t make fit. For example, we choose to quote Justin on aspects that fit the Marty and Bo theory but challenge the rest of what he said that leads away from them. We choose to believe some of what Marilyn said, the parts that fit the Marty and Bo theory but call her a liar and various other names when it doesn’t fit the theory. I’m not willing to ignore the rest of what is out there. I choose to keep an open mind. If that amounts to running a lot of flags up the flagpole so be it. I’ll do it until the right flag flies. Btw, I don’t hold it against you to think the way you do. Its your right. Plus, I hope you don’t think I’m denigrating all your hard work. I’m not. Everything you’ve done for this case is greatly appreciated. You help keep the interest and the juices flowing. Mine just don’t flow the same way as yours all the time. PS I'm not a Marty and Bo defender. They may very well be guilty. I'm just not ready to latch onto that as the only theory. Latching on to only one theory may lead to missing important clues that may solve the case. Stepping down from soapbox now. Let the lambasting begin.

Then there's the matter of proximity. Whoever did this was very close-by and felt very comfortable spending time in the cabin, knew the surroundings very well at night, and came back to the cabin a long time after the murders to do the 'final' staging.

Henry Thompson had been in the cabin…his family members used to live in Cabin 28. He knew his way around.

Look at Bo. How many crimes did he commit previously and how much time ( very little) in prison did he spend for those crimes? He was also known to be violent in some of those crimes - pistol whipping compliant females to point out some of his known violence. So much about him points to him being protected by LE. His niece said it was bs about his claims to being in the VA for being suicidal. Why was he really there and why did he hook up with Marty and go live in podunk Keddie?

Marty was nuts. Violent, misogynistic, and he assumed his confession was privileged and protected by law, imo. Was there really any reason to assume he would have told every detail in his confession to his therapist only if he was telling the truth? How did he know the "slips" to make in his interview with LE? Would he have been coached to make those slips, but told he'd be protected? He also had previously known marriage problems with Marilyn. I don't see his claims of Sue interfering with his marriage as a stretch.

Why was Justin left alive? Especially considering he did witness some of the violence that night? What perp beside Marty would have assured Justin lived? What perps would risk coming back to stage the scene if they didn't know Justin and knew they could control him?

Why was Rick's tape turned off and why no transcript? Would Rick call bs if Marty wasn't really involved?

If the crimes really were about drugs/stolen drugs, wouldn't that have been a lot easier to solve? It wouldn't take a lot to determine who stole the drugs and from whom.

Why did Crim swoop in, interview Marty and Bo and never call them on their slips, then reappear when Tina's remains were found? He reappeared even when they were claiming the remains were those of a boy from what the records seem to say.

We tend to assume LE will arrest if there is reason. Sadly, we've seen that isn't always the case in Plumas and the Keddie murders aren't the only time they have let people slide. There was a lot of hinky business being conducted in Plumas and imo that had a lot to do with why Marty and Bo were allowed to go on their merry way. LE and "important people" didn't want all that dirty business known.

Why pick a night when Justin was in the house? If it 'was to 'control the younger boys' this points to a high degree of fore-planning that includes the intent to kill everyone in the house but the younger boys. As has been asked elsewhere - why not wait for school on Monday, and six less people? Why not nab them off the street? And also:

Why pick a super-busy night when the bar was crawling with cops and there were people all over the resort? Sure, they might've been off their dials on drugs/psychotically enraged so it wasn't really planned at all, etc. But then they thought to bring the tape, come back and do complex staging, and were not at all observed to be in a drunken or drugged stupor (being cranky over the music somehow just does not cut to 'bind/stab/bludgeon/strangle a bunch of people, to me..) or staggering around covered in blood afterwards. I don't think the perps were out of control, at any point. And, if Marty and Bo did this in a rage/drugged stupor, they could not have done so and escaped getting blood all over them, were this done in a rage fit. If that was the case, they had to clean up somewhere. Where was that?

Why hang around town afterwards? Marty did, making trouble for himself at the Meeks'. And he came back, says the county jail (once more with a Meeks), causing trouble and drawing attention to himself again. Which brings me to the next point:

Marty and Bo were not stupid. They were many things - but they were not entirely stupid. And yeah, I know opinion differs there. But the fact remains that Marty ran successful cons for years and got away with it. He was a smooth talker. So was Bo to an even greater degree, both of them were effective liars - for a living. So how is it that two smooth-talking professional con-men could flub what should have been a simple interview so very, very, very badly?

There are the questions, among others, which nag at me when pondering every theory put forward on this case. Added to the highly dubious behaviour of Doug Thomas et al, the DoJ agents and to lesser extent the Butte county officials, as well as the incredible amount of misinformation/lies/silence from the locals, and I have real trouble breaking this crime down to its simplest factors. Because we can't SEE those - and I believe that what we DO see is exactly what we're MEANT to see.

As a (thankfully) former smoker, I can attest to the fact that cigarettes, even the boxed variety, would get squashed in any pocket other than a shirt pocket. What are the chances of anyone who was there, pre-staging at least, having a shirt that wasn't bloody? If they just happened to accidentally fall out of a shirt pocket then, they should have some blood on them, I would think. The chances of them accidentally falling out of any other pocket are slim.

I think the killers didn't wait until the kids were at school because they needed the cover of night.

I don't see how all of the victims could have been kept quiet and immobile at the same, unless there was some leverage being used to keep them from screaming or trying to escape. I still think that the "Tina is down by the river" story Justin told might indicate that Tina was taken alive, and that Justin and Sue were both coerced to keep quiet, at least in part, by the threat that something would happen to Tina if they didn't and maybe a promise that they'd bring her back once they got what they wanted. (And I do think they were after something, probably drug related)

The thought that maybe the boys were accosted, and possibly assaulted elsewhere, then brought to the house (maybe in a van?) and staged there keeps coming to mind. Brought home still mobile and functioning enough to give the killers whatever they were looking for, then killed and the scene staged.

The thought that maybe the boys were accosted, and possibly assaulted elsewhere, then brought to the house (maybe in a van?) and staged there keeps coming to mind. Brought home still mobile and functioning enough to give the killers whatever they were looking for, then killed and the scene staged.

A similar thought has crossed my mind fairly constantly from day 1 here, but with nothing solid to back it up. I've pretty much relegated it to the "I have a strange feeling' file, heh. Mind, I check in with that file pretty regularly.

Because it gets shot down so hard usually, I tend to keep it to myself. But it's a line of thought that at least deserves a pack of scrutiny, considering Spang, Chuck, Henry, Donna and the other tweekers all bs'ing like loons and congregating around the Sharp house in the wee hours.

I don't see how all of the victims could have been kept quiet and immobile at the same, unless there was some leverage being used to keep them from screaming or trying to escape. I still think that the "Tina is down by the river" story Justin told might indicate that Tina was taken alive, and that Justin and Sue were both coerced to keep quiet, at least in part, by the threat that something would happen to Tina if they didn't and maybe a promise that they'd bring her back once they got what they wanted. (And I do think they were after something, probably drug related)

Another very workable theory.

As for the 'cover of night' - well, sure - except Keddie was busier that particular night than it ever was in the daytime, and Sue lived a spit from the center of all that activity, daytime workers home for the night, cops and forest rangers all out on the town, cars coming and going, people traipsing around. If they wanted the risk of being caught to intensify by about ten - there's a good place to start.

I guess it being noisier/busier than any other night of the week (and moreso, for the big forestry do that night) may have been a plus, if they thought the extra noise would cover any sounds from within the house. Which again speaks to massive pre-med/organised thinking.

Or yeah, (as I suck coffee and think this through) given that folks generally place the murders between say, roughly midnight and 4am, the traffic would have slowed once the bar stopped serving, around 1.30 am-2am (around the time Marty & Bo were back for a last drink, etc). Which is about when the tweeker traffic increased, also.

Ausgirl wrote:And, if Marty and Bo did this in a rage/drugged stupor, they could not have done so and escaped getting blood all over them, were this done in a rage fit. If that was the case, they had to clean up somewhere. Where was that?

It had to have been back at C26...I don't know how much farther they could've gone to clean up without anyone noticing all the blood that would've had to have been on their clothing.

They could've perhaps changed clothing in the woods, if they'd had other clothes stashed there (another form of premeditation) but they still would've possibly had blood on their skin/hair, so that seems unlikely.

I wish that LE could have done some Luminol testing in the bathroom there for any possible traces of blood, but I don't even know if such technology was even available in 1981. It sure would've been helpful, though.

The cigerettes could have been part of the posing of the crime scene. Justin said in the interview with Harlan Embrey that he did not see the "dream perps" smoking or in the possesion of cigerettes. Example, "We'll just leave these smokes here and they'll be looking for someone that smokes this brand". Would like to add too that people before cigerettes increased in price ,were much more brand loyal. The ads really sold a image back then of why you should smoke their brand. Now a-days some people smoke whatever they can get their hands on "bumming them" or buying whatever has the best price.

Yes, it's me again. I don't know where the murderers cleaned up that night...but I swam in the good old Feather River and Butterfly Valley Creek near year round or from the time I was thrown in in March so I could learn to swim by one of my friends over in the Projects as it was called back in the 50s. I was thrown in where you would look right upon entering Keddie proper and down right by the retaining wall there across the river. The flats there was used by the older teens who lived in Keddie, et al as a "parking spot" as they were called then. The latest time of year in the river was usually September but when we moved to Butterfuly Valley to build our home it was October that year. To me this was an adventure and I suppose to most of you it sounds like a lie. It is not...just good old plain fun and a wonderful way to get clean real quick as you would not be hanging around really long there as you were turning blue. People, oohs and ahhs aside, it was totally doable and done.

I am nearly 70, in a couple on months, and some of the things I was privileged to have and do that are not available to you. Just as your things you have that I cannot use but am learning a bit. I now use a computer to email and shop since I no longer drive. I do not have nor do I want a cell phone. I find my housephone quite sufflicient. I don't know how many times I have been out and said to someone that I was sorry I did not hear them to have them tell me they were on their phone. I like the fact that I can come home listen to a message if I have one and have the choice of doing so...or not. My grandgirl would say, "That's so you grandma!"

After reading this thread it seems like it isn't 100 percent positively a fact, in some poster's minds, that the pack of cigs on the couch is a pack of Camels. It is clearly stated in the evidence report that a pack of Camels was found on the couch.

The cabin was poorly lit. The killers were not turning all the lights on in the cabin, as it would draw attention. The attacks began in the back room, and that's the only room with a light on when LE arrived.

The killers also left behind critical evidence, such as the sighting ramps from the rifle; blood smears; bloody prints. The Camels are a glaring screw-up, just along stacks of others the killers made.

PS, Bo smoked Camels as well. Not sure on other POIs, but I'd bet any non-smoking killer in that home that night would have taken up the habit.

Adding to this as a former chain smoker. I read in this thread that it may have been the hard top was torn off the top. I used to do that. I would buy boxed smokes as they were protected from getting squished, and to fit inside my cigarette holder with lighter in the front pocket of it. (can't recall the name of the leather looking purse type thingie that held smokes). I used to smoke B&H in the early 80's, and they fit perfectly in my smoke holder. Not sure where I'm going with this, but as soon as I saw the box top torn off, I was thinking Loon or a woman would do that, never have seen a man do that.

leenie963 wrote:Adding to this as a former chain smoker. I read in this thread that it may have been the hard top was torn off the top. I used to do that. I would buy boxed smokes as they were protected from getting squished, and to fit inside my cigarette holder with lighter in the front pocket of it. (can't recall the name of the leather looking purse type thingie that held smokes). I used to smoke B&H in the early 80's, and they fit perfectly in my smoke holder. Not sure where I'm going with this, but as soon as I saw the box top torn off, I was thinking Loon or a woman would do that, never have seen a man do that.

Leenie, I may be a rarity in this, but I'm a man and I used to do that in the early 1980s when I was briefly a deckhand on a Mississippi River towboat. I'd cut a little hole in the cellophane-wrapped hard pack of cigarettes I was smoking, so you could shake one cigarette at a time out of it. That kept the cigarettes from getting sweaty and crushed. Just one datapoint.